Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/10/492

Central India institute of Medical Sciences,through its Director Shri.Girdhar S/o.Madangopal Taori - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Rattan Sales Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
 
First Appeal No. A/10/492
( Date of Filing : 22 Jul 2010 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 01/12/2009 in Case No. 718/2008 of District Nagpur)
 
1. Central India institute of Medical Sciences,through its Director Shri.Girdhar S/o.Madangopal Taori
88/2 Bajaj Nagar Nagpur/33 Central Bazar Road Ramdaspeth Nagpur
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/s.Rattan Sales Corporation
Rattan house model Basti Industrial Area,Naw Delhi-110005
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 11 Jan 2016
Final Order / Judgement

 

(Dated 11/01/2016)

          None is present for the appellant. Perusal of the record and proceeding of the appeal shows that this Commission issued notice dated 3/9/2015 to the appellant by Registered Post A.D. on 9/9/2015 on its same address given in the appeal memo. The said notice has been duly served to the appellant as seen from the acknowledgment received duly signed by the appellant. The appellant failed to appear on last date and today also. Hence the appeal is dismissed in default. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in default.

 

Hon’ble Mr. B.A. Shaikh

Presiding Member

 

Hon’ble Mr. S.B. Sawarkar

Member

Later On:  

          Advocate Mr. Bhattad appeared at  3.30 p.m. before this Commission after the appeal has been already dismissed in default. He  submitted that on last date he was late and he could not put his appearance  before this Commission and therefore his presence was not recorded in the Roznama on last date. He further submitted that due to mistake, the next date was noted in his diary as 22/1/2016 and therefore today he could not  appear before this Commission before  the appeal came to be dismissed in default.

         He submitted that his junior advocate Mr. Chichbankar  was present before this Commission when the appeal came to be dismissed in default. He informed him telephonically and therefore he requested that appeal may be restored by setting aside order of dismissal in default. He also submitted that when he has put  his appearance today itself, this Commission can  restore the appeal which is dismissed in default. However we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another, reported in 2012(2) MhLJ 1. It has made it very clear that this Commission has no power to set aside its own order and this Commission has no power of review. We  therefore hold that as this Commission cannot set aside its own order passed today, the request made by the learned advocate of the appellant cannot be accepted for restoration of appeal. Hence his request is not accepted and accordingly the present order is passed.   

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.